On 2003-12-05 17:34:47 + Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I advocated was considering the possibility of adding an
explanatory
footnote for those who do *not* have such training, outside the
formal text
in question (potentially in another document entirely, probably one
without
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:43:56AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> I don't want to debate whether there is a "functional difference"
> because I think I will be accused of more "esoteric math[s]" talk and
> it's not relevant. The phrasing in question here seems accurate and
> clear enough that you can
On 2003-12-04 03:48:28 + Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then I would have to say that we have, in fact, gone far enough into
the
realms of esoteric math (or pedantry) to have utterly lost any casual
reader.
Accuracy and pedantry are not the same thing. I see little evidence
that w
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:00:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-12-04 00:52:17 + Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Frankly, I'd wonder if the most suitable answer isn't simply an
> >annotation
> >of some form, to the effect of "[1] Since one can't have fractional
> >developers, and
On 2003-12-04 00:52:17 + Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FWIW, while I'm not sure if I agree with the assertion that it is a
problem, I do think the submitter deserves some level of
justification for
why it isn't left open/wontfix, since that is, in fact, what the
default
state for "
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003, Joel Baker wrote:
> FWIW, while I'm not sure if I agree with the assertion that it is a
> problem, I do think the submitter deserves some level of justification for
> why it isn't left open/wontfix,
Because there is no problem. We need at least
developers is perfectly clear
Looks to me like the only reasonable next step, since the user considers it
sufficiently important to ask for it to be open/wontfix (which might not be
unreasonable), and others insist that it be closed completely (which also
might not be unreasonable), is to ask... well, I'd guess the tech-ctty,
e
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 07:18:15PM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> The other reason to close this report is that the doc debian
> package can't itself do anything to fix this supposed flaw; it has no
> authority to modify the constitution. If the constitution needs to be
> chang
8 matches
Mail list logo
